INDEX  F.A.Q.  SEARCH  LATEST POSTS     Rules  Register  Profile  Private messages  Login


Search all forums or this forum: Advanced search
Youtube Upload, increase quality/control (HQ hack obsolete)
Forum Index -> How to's -> User guides Printer-friendly version
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15 ... 56, 57, 58  Next
Reply to topic
Author Message
reez
Member


Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Location: United States
Post Posted: Feb 14, 2008 18:01 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
oh why must u force this placebo effect on us?...*sigh* now i dont know WHAT im seeing. Ok to save us all this trouble, how about you upload the vid that YOU consider to be this "abnormal HQ vid..with BRAINS of it's OWn" to rapidshare so that we may download and see. SOUND GUD?...i think YES?...so that i may now SLEEP!?..and wake up to da LIES TOMORROW?!!?

dtfinch
Member


Joined: 07 Feb 2008
Location: United States
Post Posted: Feb 14, 2008 19:40 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
On Windows, I use a program called Hobocopy to copy all the flash videos (fla*.tmp) from my temp folder, since Flash locks them read-exclusive. On other systems it's a simple drag and drop from /tmp/.

A YouTube specific video downloader which generates the appropriate url for the 320x240 video and downloads it, rather than retrieving the video you already downloaded, will always get the 320x240 video at the 320x240-specific url it generated, until they update them to support the new video url scheme.

I've already posted sendspace links to 6 videos that you can watch and compare to their 320x240 counterparts.

45tripp
Dolphin Blue


Joined: 21 Dec 2004
Location: Triptonia
Post Posted: Feb 14, 2008 20:13 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
guys,
all this discussion about streaming capabilities is off topic.
you can discuss it elsewhere.
and you may start by asking if anyone outside the US has seen this upgrade effect,
i doubt it,
which is another reason why it interests me very little right now.

ricardouk wrote:
hi, i just reinstalled xp on my pc and im reluctant to install mediainfo as it messes around with some icons and theres no way(that i know of ) on mediainfo to undo that.


you don't have to use the installer,
find the zipped version and unzip somewhere...

tripp

ricardouk
Member


Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Location: PORTUGAL
Post Posted: Feb 15, 2008 03:34 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
yes, i was using the portable version of it, and it still messed up some icons, it takes over mp4, ifo, bup and some other ones....

Quote:
so what do YOU use to tell the Kbps?


nothing at the moment, trying to find something that doesn have the above side effects
_________________
I love it when a plan comes together!
Ricardo Santos

reez
Member


Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Location: United States
Post Posted: Feb 15, 2008 07:18 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
thanks ric

dtfinch wrote:
I've already posted sendspace links to 6 videos that you can watch and compare to their 320x240 counterparts.


so can you give us the links?

45tripp wrote:
guys,
all this discussion about streaming capabilities is off topic.
you can discuss it elsewhere.


aww man this awesome thread is done already? i was jus starting to have fun

yawoo
Member


Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Post Posted: Feb 16, 2008 10:23 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
I have used the following command to generate flv file, and have modified the HEX code to duration to 10mins.
But after I upload to youtube, it still re-encode and produce bad quality video. Anyone can correct me?

Code:
mencoder.exe "F:\JOI\joi_cctv.avs" -srate 44100 -oac mp3lame -lameopts abr:br=64:mode=3  -ovc lavc -lavcopts vcodec=flv:vqscale=7 -of lavf -lavfopts format=flv -o "d:\joi_cctv.flv"




superzombie23
Member


Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Location: United States
Post Posted: Feb 16, 2008 14:28 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
yawoo wrote:
I have used the following command to generate flv file, and have modified the HEX code to duration to 10mins.
But after I upload to youtube, it still re-encode and produce bad quality video. Anyone can correct me?

Code:
mencoder.exe "F:\JOI\joi_cctv.avs" -srate 44100 -oac mp3lame -lameopts abr:br=64:mode=3  -ovc lavc -lavcopts vcodec=flv:vqscale=7 -of lavf -lavfopts format=flv -o "d:\joi_cctv.flv"




The HQ hack is OBSOLETE. Read the title of thread.

bayme
hero


Joined: 10 Nov 2007
Location: EU
Post Posted: Feb 16, 2008 17:07 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
dtfinch wrote:
On Windows, I use a program called Hobocopy to copy all the flash videos (fla*.tmp) from my temp folder, since Flash locks them read-exclusive.
Strange.. I have always been able to simply copy YT flv from cache. The firefox cache, IE cache, and Opera cache. I use TotalCommander in Windows. It does nothing special while copying.
What exactly would be "read-exclusive"? Or is this something strange from Vista? I use XP x64, 2003 or Longhorn/2008. the read-exclusive thing is something I've never noticed.

wonderpierrot wrote:
Not the best example, but here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1hkK4AxW7A

Try using IE7. When Firefox doesn't load the HQ videos on some of my computers IE7 seems to load them, at least on the 2nd or 3rd refresh.

Nothing special happening here.

This is a trace to the particular source data for the flv:
Code:
Tracing route to ash-v93.ash.youtube.com [64.15.118.214] over a maximum of 30 hops:

1     0 ms     0 ms     0 ms  gbll881.--.net [192.168.88.1]
2     3 ms     3 ms     3 ms  0.ge-0-3-5.xr3.3d12.xs4all.net [194.109.7.37]
3    16 ms     7 ms    19 ms  0.so-7-0-0.xr1.tc2.xs4all.net [194.109.5.14]
4    47 ms     6 ms     6 ms  po1.ccr01.ams03.atlas.cogentco.com [195.69.144.124]
5   109 ms    14 ms    14 ms  te1-1.mpd02.lon01.atlas.cogentco.com [130.117.1.170]
6   117 ms   237 ms   171 ms  te2-2.ccr04.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.5.122]
7   107 ms    92 ms   109 ms  te3-3.mpd01.jfk01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.24.149]
8    90 ms   202 ms    92 ms  vl3490.mpd01.ewr03.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.1.30]
9   301 ms   209 ms   193 ms  you-tube-llc.demarc.cogentco.com [38.101.84.66]
10     *        *        *     Request timed out.
(YT is firewalled)

Last edited by bayme on Feb 16, 2008 21:50, edited 1 time in total
Denizzje
Member


Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Location: Netherlands
Post Posted: Feb 16, 2008 17:54 Posts View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
reez wrote:
ricardouk wrote:

but answering your question, i didnt even know gspot scanned flv, i always used mediainfo, but you can try avinaptic, dont know if it supports flv but it doesnt harm trying it....


so what do YOU use to tell the Kbps?

stsin wrote:

This is the 1Mbit video I was talking about earlier:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRgdfdeKIFM
The poster didn't even know there was a higher quality version, till I told him to keep reloading the page till the better version shows up.


...i dont really think there is a second version..YES it looks REALLY good. But when i download it, it is the same crappy 320/240 version. Since he uploaded the vid at 16:9, remember YT gives it the black bars....so maybe the player somehow knows that and treats it separate from the vid...GOD this crap is complicated im going to sleep


Now that is really strange. I first watched it on Firefox and it showed the higher quality version on the first time. I actually went reloading because I expected better. Then I opened it in IE7 because that should have opened the HQ version. And then I saw that what I first saw is actually the HQ version and now I saw a blocky, just ugly video. I kept reloading it but the HQ version wouldn't return. Then I opened it in FF again, and now it doesn't want to show up again anymore on FF too... Veeeeeeeery strange.

reez
Member


Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Location: United States
Post Posted: Feb 16, 2008 19:39 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
IMO all this wud be solved if the people who "got" this HQ version from there CACHE wud just POST DOWNLOAD LINKS

45tripp
Dolphin Blue


Joined: 21 Dec 2004
Location: Triptonia
Post Posted: Feb 16, 2008 20:17 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
@yawoo

yes the hack has been patched.

but
1. you can still upload your stream with bitrates under 350k and have them pass through untouched
2. you can still cheat duration, if you're willing to pad the stream with still images.
3. you can use an alternate service.
4. you can wait for the youtube upgrade


tripp

wonderpierrot
Member


Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Location: United States
Post Posted: Feb 16, 2008 20:26 Posts View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
reez wrote:
IMO all this wud be solved if the people who "got" this HQ version from there CACHE wud just POST DOWNLOAD LINKS


How would doing that prove its existence? Anyone can take a video and convert it to high quality 1000kps FLV and upload it.

If already 5 people, including myself, has witnessed the high quality videos then that should prove that it is out there.

Unfortunately I am unable to upload a 6th high quality video after the 5th one, and I attempted nearly everything possible to get it working (change video format, resolution, compression settings, uploading 5 more low quality vids, waiting days). If anyone is able to figure out the process of how YouTube is creating and presenting these alternate high quality versions of videos then I and everyone else would greatly appreciate it.

SpongeFreak52
Member


Joined: 17 Feb 2008
Location: United States
Post Posted: Feb 17, 2008 00:23 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
Wait a minute. If the HQ trick is blocked, how are these videos still possible? Note that this one was uploaded only 5 days ago from now.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dgISAjQsNCg

If someone could give me specs for that kinda vid, I'd be very gracious.

45tripp
Dolphin Blue


Joined: 21 Dec 2004
Location: Triptonia
Post Posted: Feb 17, 2008 03:11 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
SpongeFreak52 wrote:
Wait a minute. If the HQ trick is blocked, how are these videos still possible? Note that this one was uploaded only 5 days ago from now.


45tripp wrote:

2. you can still cheat duration, if you're willing to pad the stream with still images.


SpongeFreak52
Member


Joined: 17 Feb 2008
Location: United States
Post Posted: Feb 17, 2008 06:31 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
Hm...this is strange. See, I had uploaded a series of 121 videos for a video game, and now that I go back to earlier numbers, I see that some of them are much larger than normal as stated above with the resize button.

The weird thing is that let's say we have videos 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
1 is HQ (http://youtube.com/watch?v=aHQ7L14EkJ8&feature=related)
2 is LQ (http://youtube.com/watch?v=MelAAyRcgnk&feature=related)
3 is LQ (http://youtube.com/watch?v=hll_9tn3-so&feature=related)
4 is HQ (http://youtube.com/watch?v=5-rQu80IpYc&feature=related)
5 is LQ (http://youtube.com/watch?v=3212BcRJnWQ)

What I want to know is why numbers 1 and 4 are in better quality. Could it be that those have already made the switch to better quality videos? Because I used the exact same settings for all 5 of those videos, and they were all originally 640 x 480. The bitrates were similar as well.

So this could be a simple "it's made the switch to HQ" scenario, or something very strange is going on. Any ideas?

bayme
hero


Joined: 10 Nov 2007
Location: EU
Post Posted: Feb 17, 2008 08:43 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
SpongeFreak52 wrote:
What I want to know is why numbers 1 and 4 are in better quality.
They aren't, from where I see them.

What's with all the silly animated stuff here on this forum? What's the average age here? wink.gif

yawoo
Member


Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Post Posted: Feb 17, 2008 09:59 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
That mean YT has re-encoded some of video if the original uploaded quality is good?
For example, video 4, you can download new re-encoded version from YT.
Play this video,
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5-rQu80IpYc

View the page source, and search for "&t=", u will find that there is a new parameter "fmt_map" nearby.
Copy the "t=" string between two "&", and then use the format of the following string,

http://www.youtube.com/get_video?video_id=5-rQu80IpYc&fmt=6&t=OEg ... SSdqaOHfpJ

You need to change the string behind "&t=" as shown in your page source. As result, u can download the
better quality video from YT directly.

yawoo
Member


Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Post Posted: Feb 17, 2008 10:57 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
Just find that a number of video I uploaded to YT at the early of Feb, have been upgraded to good quality also. All uploaded formats I used are 640x480 Xvid + MP3.

SpongeFreak52
Member


Joined: 17 Feb 2008
Location: United States
Post Posted: Feb 17, 2008 12:24 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
Interesting. While I can't disagree with what you've said, I think the switch's ETA depends on the original format uploaded. For example, I had used WMV formats up until about video #65, and that's the last one that's had good quality so far. After #66, I was using XVID AVI files, and none of those have been upgraded yet. Very strange.

bayme
hero


Joined: 10 Nov 2007
Location: EU
Post Posted: Feb 17, 2008 12:35 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
yawoo wrote:
u will find that there is a new parameter "fmt_map" nearby.

http://www.youtube.com/get_video?video_id=5-rQu80IpYc&fmt=6&t=OEg ... SSdqaOHfpJ

You need to change the string behind "&t=" as shown in your page source. As result, u can download the
better quality video from YT directly.

First of all, the fmt_map string isn't in the source when I view it here in NL, Europe.
Second, the get_video request yields no results here either.

However, using the normal view-string, so:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-rQu80IpYc&fmt=6
does give me a 448x336 flv of about 650 kbit/s AV in total. With 96 kbit/s CBR mp3 audio at 44.1 kHz in mono
(which is kind of disappointing by the way, but may depend on the upload). I think they should use lame vbr mp3 at least.

Can someone come up with something other than game or animated videos example?

Last edited by bayme on Mar 17, 2008 22:11, edited 2 times in total
yawoo
Member


Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Post Posted: Feb 17, 2008 12:52 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
bayme wrote:

First of all, the fmt_map string isn't in the source when I view it here in NL, Europe.
Second, the get_video request yields no results here either.

However, using the normal view-string, so:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-rQu80IpYc&fmt=6&t=OEgsToPDskIXTT ... SSdqaOHfpJ
does give me a 448x336 flv of about 650 kbit/s AV in total. With 96 kbit/s CBR mp3 audio at 44.1 kHz in mono
(which is kind of disappointing by the way, but may depend on the upload). I think they should use lame vbr mp3 at least.

But again, can someone come up with something other than game or animated videos here?


If it don't show up fmt_map in the page source, it may mean your speed is too low to show up HQ mode, I think.
Thanks for your guessing the link, it works for forcing the HQ mode. Here is the example for u,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKw7mu6lzso&fmt=6

reez
Member


Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Location: United States
Post Posted: Feb 17, 2008 12:59 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
bayme wrote:

However, using the normal view-string, so:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-rQu80IpYc&fmt=6&t=OEgsToPDskIXTT ... SSdqaOHfpJ
does give me a 448x336 flv


using this method I've seen some at 480/360...why aren't they consistant with the ratio?

yeoz
Member


Joined: 26 Dec 2007
Location: United States
Post Posted: Feb 17, 2008 13:19 Posts Comp View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
SpongeFreak52 wrote:
Wait a minute. If the HQ trick is blocked, how are these videos still possible? Note that this one was uploaded only 5 days ago from now.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dgISAjQsNCg

If someone could give me specs for that kinda vid, I'd be very gracious.
Hey, that's my video tongue.gif
(cut a lot of stuff I ended up sending to SpongeFreak52 over IM)

Last edited by yeoz on Feb 17, 2008 22:56, edited 2 times in total
Denizzje
Member


Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Location: Netherlands
Post Posted: Feb 17, 2008 13:28 Posts View users profile Send private message Reply with quote
SpongeFreak52 wrote:

The weird thing is that let's say we have videos 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
1 is HQ (http://youtube.com/watch?v=aHQ7L14EkJ8&feature=related)
2 is LQ (http://youtube.com/watch?v=MelAAyRcgnk&feature=related)
3 is LQ (http://youtube.com/watch?v=hll_9tn3-so&feature=related)
4 is HQ (http://youtube.com/watch?v=5-rQu80IpYc&feature=related)
5 is LQ (http://youtube.com/watch?v=3212BcRJnWQ)

What I want to know is why numbers 1 and 4 are in better quality. Could it be that those have already made the switch to better quality videos? Because I used the exact same settings for all 5 of those videos, and they were all originally 640 x 480. The bitrates were similar as well.


This seems to be changing all the time. Earlier when I looked, 1 was NOT HQ, but 4 and 5 were. Now, only 1 jumped to HQ while the rest was LQ.

Number 33 is upgraded too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnUiYKr7p74

bayme
hero


Joined: 10 Nov 2007
Location: EU
Post Posted: Feb 17, 2008 13:44